And Jesus Said, Give Only to Those Who Are Worthy

Christianity presents itself as religion which promotes charity, love, and doing good works. For some reason, though, American Christians are starting to limit their 'charity' to only those who are deemed 'worthy' of their compassion. Apparently, being poor is a sign of moral failing and Christians are no longer interested in helping such people.

The image of Christians as being inherently charitable has even fooled some atheists. Roy Hattersley, for example, has written in the Guardian that religious faith breeds charity:

The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character. Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers’ clubs and atheists’ associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion’s intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.

Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists. The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand.

Apparently, the correlation is “so clear” that Hattersley doesn’t even think it necessary to defend and support the assertion — but had he bothered to try, he might have found that his position isn’t as sound as he thought it was. Several humanist and non-religious organizations are involved in providing aid to the victims of hurricane Katrina.

The American Red Cross is a secular organization which provides secular aid to people (in contrast, for example, to Habitat for Humanity). MoveOn.org created Hurricane Housing to help the victims find a place to live.

Then there is the fact that most churches aren't as charitable as people assume:

The biblical injunction to help the poor likewise gets short shrift from many evangelicals. They gave six percent of their income to charity in 1968 and, after decades of growing affluence, only four percent in 2001. That’s better than the three percent given by mainline Protestants, but still much less than the biblical tithe of 10 percent.

This is not to say that religious believers aren’t charitable, but it’s clear that Hattersley is making claims that are in accordance with popular prejudices, but aren’t necessarily in accordance with reality. That’s often the case with claims made about religion. It’s curious, though, that even as Hattersley had the above published, Christianity Today published an article about the new moral tone being invested in Christian charity:

More than half of donors are motivated by faith, according to two recent Center on Philanthropy surveys. Yet principles of religious faith aren’t always manifest in charitable decisions, according to former Harvard Divinity School dean and International Rescue Committee President George Rupp.

Given the fact that the percentage of religious believers in America is between 80% and 90%, religious motivation should be a lot higher than just “more than half.” Unless, of course, religion isn’t such a huge motivation as people like Hattersley assume.

[G]iving patterns suggest donors are losing patience with chronic problems such as poverty, in which suffering is arguably exacerbated by questionable choices. Private donations are shrinking for homeless shelters, AIDS-related services and programs for troubled youth, to cite just a few examples. In religious circles and beyond, some see a troubling trend: Compassion is increasingly being reserved for those who appear to have done no wrong.

“For some reason, we’re not being sympathetic to the poor and the needy as we’re leaving certain people behind,” says Daniel Borochoff, president of the Chicago-based American Institute of Philanthropy. “It is harder to raise money for people who made bad choices. … It is hard for the charities to tell people, `Yeah, OK, sure, these giant things get a lot of news, but you know, there’s thousands of people who smoke in bed and start a fire and have to get help.’”

“I get very nervous when we start talking about the worthy poor,” Butler says. “In the national debate, the poor got smeared with the idea that these poor were driving Cadillacs while they were on welfare. … The thing to do is respond (to their plight) as Christ would respond, with justice and mercy.”

This attitude is exemplified by Kathy Shaidle, who writes that "If poor people could be trusted with money, they wouldn't be poor in the first place..." I guess that's the new Catholic social consciousness: Blessed are the trustworthy poor, for they won't spend our charity irresponsibly... Blessed are the skeptically merciful, for they won't bestow mercy on those who don't deserve it...

Shaidle is Canadian, not American, but it appears that she has been infected with some pernicious thinking from south of the border. I'd wager that her priest wouldn't for a second agree with such attitudes, but I'd also wager that she doesn't share such thoughts with her priest. It's been my experience that bigoted, angry Christians don't usually discuss these things with their religious leaders. I wonder why that is?

Read More:

• Religious Right
• Religious Right News
• Christian Nationalism
• Religious Intolerance & Bigotry